Is the material canon to FR? I presume it is, but it would be nice to know for sure. I can whip up a citation template if you give me the fields to include. Would {{Cite web}} work if I added a field for the "DDEX03-01"? What would you call it? Can we get a URL that is meaningful for folks without a password?

I've been adding a few of the pdf so far and made an earlier forum post about using the {{Cite digital book}} template as compromise. I think more pdf materials will emerge over time and it would be good to have way of referencing them properly (especially when we are getting 30-60 page adventures).

I have passwords for all of the seasons so far. The adventures are canon, though even if you can't get hold of them the Adventurer's League website releases the official results of the campaign, showing which variables in the modules actually occurred, after a certain amount of time has passed. So far, they've only done Season One though.

Lhyn, that thought crossed my mind as well, but User 11 is a creating fiend and I was just trying to keep up with all the edits... most of these pdfs are password protected... let's see what Movie and BadCat think.

I don't think the speculation tag applies to these adventures anymore than it does to other adventures. The events of the adventures and characters involved are still canon the only thing the post-season summary does is give an overview of the consequences of the those events. I think the {{speculation}} is a good policing tool for embellished wordings but not for an entire article. If the entire article is made up then that's what the {{Unreferenced}} tag is for after all.

I think my bigger concern is not so much whether such articles are canon; it is whether such articles have confirmable sources. If the sources aren't open to the regular public, then any such sources are hearsay.

But as far as canon goes, how are other adventures handled. If an NPC is a PC encounter, we cannot say such things as "Throg the orc was killed by a party of adventurers," can we? Because some players may well have captured or bribed or whatever him instead. Something like that deserves a {{Speculation}} tag of some sort, yes?

The adventures would presumably fall under the same copyright and fair use rules we use for everything else. All articles should avoid speculation where possible (or even called out in the notes section like we do with our Al-Qadim articles) but like everything the information is only confirmable by those who have the original sources: whether they have a hard copy, pdf, or a distributed pack. The same should apply in this instance, as long as there is a reference, folk with access to the material can check it, those who don't, can't.

Just thought I should let people know that Adventurer's Guild modules are now on sale as part of the DM's Guild. Also, once Season 4 begins in a few months, all new Adventurer's Guild content is slated to be free to download for everyone.

Hash: Did you mean "all old Adventurers League content? Did this happen? The only free content I see on the Dungeon Masters Guild site are Player Packs and reference sheets—all the modules still require payment to download. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Is this a good format? Should the templates be organized alphabetically by title, or by the Adventurers League code? Should the citation templates be subpages under the code (similar to the way we have organized Dragon citation templates) or perhaps the storyline? I doubt making subpages is necessary because we can have the template sorted by code if that is desirable, but it's a choice we need to make.